"passerby" wrote in message
roups.com...

replying to none , passerby wrote:
none wrote:
Just to add some additional fuel to the gun controversy.

What exactly is the controversy? All you can do with this silly looking
thing is to kill *yourself*. You can't hit any target with it but you
definitely can put it in your mouth and pull the trigger. You can also
accidentally kill yourself if it just blows up in your face due to
printing or assembly defects, material quality and such. And there won't
be a manufacturer that your widow can sue...

But people have been using firearms for killing themselves for a long time
now

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...al/gun-deaths/

So, where is the controversy? A (properly working) 3D printer is nowhere
near as available as a ready-to-kill hand gun is and costs *way* more.
Plus the cost of the college education to use the printer and the software
that runs it ... Reminds of Chris Rock's $5000 bullet:

"
...

And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five
thousand dollars. €˜Man I would blow your f*cking head off€¦if I could
afford it. €˜Im gonna get me another job, Im going to start
saving some money, and youre a dead man. Youd better hope I cant
get no bullets on layaway.

...

"

So, no, not a controversy. Probably the best thing that ever happened to
both gun control and 3D printing industry which could use some cash
infusion by 3D printing gun enthusiasts.
================================================== =========================
I hear this from time to time. Does everyone think that technology stands
still? 3D printing is the hot up and commer of manufacturing. Making a fully
functional gun is quite possible using existing technology. There is a
company now that can 3D print metals such as titanium, stainless steel,
cobalt chrome and tool steel. This technology has a ways to go but,
eventually I believe that 3D printing, or an offshoot of it, will replace
machining as a manufacturing process.